[Joe_October]

.... This bill is nothing compared to the $200 billion debt financed adventure in Iraq to build a welfare state, but it an enemy of civil society. ....

You're complaining about Iraq costing $200 Billion. What did it cost to deal with 9-11? The Terrorists attacked us and would do so again because they believe that the wouldn't fight back. Sorry to disappoint them.

Of course your analysis was complete as always. I've read that this bill is bad, that some have estimated at $40 Billion but government spending is always estimated low, that old people are stealing from the young over and over again. If that is all you have to report, why waste the bandwidth?

[JohnGalt]

No, I was complaining about debt financing the war.

That is not a conservative tradition.

But you are mistaken, Osama's stated goal was to provoke an East vs West showdown; he was counting on a response from the United States so that his minion (totaling more than 19) could take better aim at the infidels. The Bush response was to play ball, but to strike back harder and more sustained than "Osama" and "AQ" could compensate for.

Welfare always follow warfare but some are just fine with that. I continue to post so that those who support the warfare but not the welfare that always follows take greater responsibility to be sober patriots.